DSL Athletics
D-ATH · Dominican Summer League Dominican Summer League West · 2026Roster construction
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitters used | 16 | 20 | −4 | 56th of 81 |
|
| Plate-appearance-weighted batting age | 18.7 | 18.9 | −0.2 | 37th of 81 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 2162 | 2137 | +24 | 33rd of 81 |
|
| Share of plate appearances given to hitters 25 and under | 100.0% | 99.2% | +0.8% | 1st of 81 |
|
| Plate appearances given to hitters 35 and older | 0 | 0 | — | 4th of 81 |
|
Staff shape
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitchers used | 19 | 26 | −7 | 72nd of 81 |
|
| Share of innings thrown by starters | 59.5% | 63.4% | −3.8% | 53rd of 81 |
|
| Blown saves | 12 | 10 | +1 | 53rd of 81 |
|
Results
| Metric | Value | Lg avg | Diff | Rank | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run differential | 65 | 0 | +65 | 19th of 81 |
|
| Run differential per game | 1.16 | -0.00 | +1.16 | 19th of 81 |
|
| Runs scored per game | 6.50 | 6.20 | +0.30 | 32nd of 81 |
|
| Runs allowed per game | 5.34 | 6.20 | −0.86 | 26th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage | .571 | .500 | +.071 | 27th of 81 |
|
| Pythagorean winning percentage | .589 | .503 | +.086 | 19th of 81 |
|
| Wins above Pythagorean expectation | -1.0 | -0.2 | −0.8 | 53rd of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in one-run games | .438 | .496 | −.058 | 54th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in games decided by five or more | .722 | .500 | +.222 | 11th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage in extra innings | .500 | .525 | −.025 | 30th of 61 |
|
| Home winning percentage | .500 | .557 | −.057 | 51st of 81 |
|
| Road winning percentage | .643 | .443 | +.200 | 7th of 81 |
|
| Winning percentage within the division | .531 | .501 | +.030 | 39th of 81 |
|
| Longest winning streak | 5 | 5 | — | 29th of 81 |
|
Rank is among the Rk clubs with a value for that metric, best first. Descriptive metrics (roster age, WAR concentration) are ranked but not colored — for them, "high" isn't "good".